Way to end stalemate over political reform

Advises a public consultation should be conducted to gauge the will of the public to opt for a universal suffrage system following the Aug 31 framework

Wang Zhenmin — the director of Legal Affairs Department of the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region — said over the weekend in Beijing that because there is little chance any resolution could obtain a two-thirds approval by the Legislative Council, there was not much point in relaunching the political reform consultation in Hong Kong. Tsang Yok-sing, former LegCo president, remarked however that without resolving the political reform issue, all other problems related to public governance would remain unresolved. “Sweeping the problem under the carpet would not mean the problem would go away.” In particular, not relaunching the consultation exercise does not mean peace would return to Hong Kong.

Both Wang and Tsang are partly correct. Wang is certainly correct in observing that, in the absence of some extraneous compelling considerations, legislators in the “pan-democrat” camp are unlikely to approve any political reform package designed within the Aug 31 2014 framework, which was endorsed by the National People’s Congress Standing Committee. But, as Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying remarked, the “pan-democrats” had failed to appreciate the bottom line of the central government. Since the central government will take the Aug 31 framework as the bottom line and will definitely not back down, there will be little hope for a reconciliation. The LegCo will not find a solution that will win the approval of at least two-thirds of its members. Tsang is also certainly correct in concluding that the “pandemocrats”, as well as a segment of the public, will continue to voice their discontent from time to time, and this will be reflected in various forms of uncooperative gestures in The author is dean of business at Chu Hai College of Higher Education.

and out of LegCo sessions.

But Hong Kong does need to walk out of this stalemate.

To resolve this stalemate, the following perhaps just might work.

First, I would advise that the central government announces that it is ready to approve the political reform package proposed by the SAR government which followed the Aug 31 framework any time if two-thirds of LegCo members would approve it.

Second, I would advise the central government to announce that it is open to consider improvements that stay within the Aug 31 framework.

Third, I would advise that a public consultation is to be conducted to gauge the will of the public to opt for a universal suffrage system based on candidates nominated by the Nominating Committee following the Aug 31 framework rather than the existing system that effectively entrusts the 1,200-member Election Committee to vote on behalf of all Hong Kong voters. The public will be informed that possible improvement under the Aug 31 framework may be considered but anything breaching the framework will not be considered. The public consultation will be launched if and only if the LegCo members agree to endorse the proposal, once it is found to command public support. I am hoping public endorsement may be such a compelling consideration that “pan-democrat” legislators might support the reform package.

I have actually found the government proposal to be very liberal. The government had proposed that any candidate needs only win the support of 10 percent of the Nominating Committee in order to enter the race. But to be fully nominated as a candidate, he or she must not be objected to by 10 percent of the committee members. Once “initiated”(let us call someone who wins the support of 10 percent of the nominating votes “initiated”), those who are initiated can try to convince the public and Nominating Committee members that they are knowledgeable about public policy, are fair and trustworthy, and can effectively communicate with the central government. There will be polls to indicate how the public sees all the initiated runners, and all Nominating Committee members will be expected to exercise “due diligence” to approve or disapprove each candidate.

In conclusion, the public consultation exercise should not be launched without an understanding that LegCo members will support the reform package that commands public support. Many Hong Kong people who watched the latest CE election as spectators would prefer that they could have some sway over who is to be elected.

The proposed relaunch of the political reform consultation may not be approved by LegCo. But the public will see that the central government is offering yet another opportunity for Hong Kong people to directly elect the next CE. Since the Basic Law states that “the method for selecting the Chief Executive shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures,” what I am proposing can be seen as consistent with the principle of “gradual and orderly progress”. If the LegCo members throw this offer out, the central government cannot be held responsible for breaching its promise of allowing Hong Kong people to elect their own Chief Executive.